Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Murugan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2 May 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 2 May 2018

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can a person be convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence, even if the main accused dies before the trial? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Murugan vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The court upheld the conviction of the appellant, Murugan, emphasizing that a strong chain of circumstantial evidence can lead to a guilty verdict, even in the absence of direct evidence or the main accused. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of one Kumar, who was found dead in his house. The prosecution’s case was that Kumar had a strained relationship with the deceased, Murugan, because Murugan did not approve of Kumar’s intention to marry his daughter, Geetha. On the night of the incident, Kumar, along with the appellant, Murugan (cousin of Kumar), invited the deceased, Murugan, for dinner at Kumar’s house. Geetha, the daughter of the deceased, visited Kumar’s house later that night and found all three men dining together. The next morning, the deceased, Murugan, was found dead in Kumar’s house. The main accused, Kumar, died before the trial could begin, leaving the appellant, Murugan, as the sole accused.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial commenced against the appellant after the main accused, Kumar, died. The Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal, convicted the appellant under Sections 364 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 364: “Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34: “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that since the main accused, Kumar, died before the trial, nothing survives against the appellant for prosecution.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The prosecution argued that the appellant was actively involved in the crime with a common intention to eliminate the deceased, Murugan.
• The prosecution presented a chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the appellant’s guilt.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence, especially after the death of the main accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, it considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Explains the concept of common intention.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to determine the punishment for the murder.
• The Court applied Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to determine the punishment for kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.
• The Court applied Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to establish the common intention of the appellant and the main accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the following points:

• The strong chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution.
• The appellant’s presence at the scene of the crime with the deceased and the main accused.
• The appellant’s failure to explain the circumstances appearing against him.
• The common intention of the appellant and the main accused to eliminate the deceased.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the death of the main accused should lead to the acquittal of the appellant but rejected it, stating that the appellant’s involvement was independent of the main accused’s status. The Court emphasized that the chain of circumstantial evidence was strong enough to prove the appellant’s guilt.

The court stated, “In our considered opinion, the two Courts below have rightly held that the appellant’s conviction was based on circumstantial evidence which, in this case, the prosecution was able to prove it by adducing evidence.”

The court further noted, “In our view, the aforementioned eight circumstances do constitute a chain of events against the appellant and lead to draw a strong conclusion against the appellant and Kumar for having committed the murder of Murugan.”

The court also observed, “A theory of ‘accused last seen in the company of the deceased’ is a strong circumstance against the accused while appreciating the circumstantial evidence.”

Key Takeaways

• A conviction can be upheld based on circumstantial evidence if the chain of evidence is strong and unbroken.
• The death of a co-accused does not automatically absolve the other accused if there is sufficient evidence against them.
• The theory of “last seen together” is a strong circumstance against an accused in cases of circumstantial evidence.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence even if the main accused dies before the trial, provided that the chain of circumstances is complete and points towards the guilt of the accused. This case reinforces the principle that the death of a co-accused does not automatically absolve the other accused if there is sufficient evidence against them. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, Murugan, emphasizing that a strong chain of circumstantial evidence can lead to a guilty verdict, even in the absence of direct evidence or the main accused. The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the appellant’s involvement in the murder of Murugan based on the evidence presented.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Circumstantial Evidence
• Murder
• Common Intention
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 364, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: Can someone be convicted of murder based only on circumstantial evidence?

A: Yes, a person can be convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence if the prosecution can establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that points towards the guilt of the accused.

Q: What happens if the main accused in a murder case dies before the trial?

A: If the main accused dies before the trial, the case against them will abate. However, if there is sufficient evidence against other accused persons, the trial can continue against them.

Q: What is the “last seen together” theory in law?

A: The “last seen together” theory is a legal principle where the fact that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased is considered a strong piece of circumstantial evidence against the accused, especially in cases where the death occurs shortly after.

Q: What is “common intention” in the context of criminal law?

A: “Common intention” refers to a shared plan or purpose among two or more individuals to commit a criminal act. If a crime is committed in furtherance of a common intention, each person involved is liable for the act as if they had done it alone.